Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1648 (GUJ)

Kanubhai Bavabhai Mori v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-15

RAJESH H.SHUKLA

body2017
ORDER : RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. 1. Rule. Learned AGP Shri Amit Barot waives service of rule for the respondents. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) read with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter re ferred to as ‘the Act’), inter alia, that the representation/application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ-10-X-6974 may be decided and the said vehicle of the petitioner may be released, on the rounds stated in the application. 3. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Mamrata Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri Amit Barot for the respondents. 4. The prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ-10-X-6974 belonging to the petitioner as stated by him. The certificate of registration is also produced on record. It is the case of the petitioner that the said vehicle came to be seized by respondent No. 3 on the grounds stated therein. 5. Learned advocate, Ms. Shah has submitted that despite several requests and the application made, respondent No. 2-authority is not releasing the vehicle even though the authority has the power to release the vehicle under the Rules. It is submitted that the said vehicle is a source of livelihood for the petitioner and if it is kept in open without use it may be damaged. Therefore, it has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to execute a bond as required under the rules and subject to such condition the vehicle may be released and/or the application filed by the petitioner under rule 18 may be decided. 6. Learned AGP Shri Amit Barot has submitted that the irregularity is committed for which the said vehicle has been detained and therefore it was submitted that the application may be considered on its own merits. 7. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is about non-release of the vehicle which has been detained by respondent No. 3. Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules gives power to the authority to detain and seize such vehicle. Rule 18 of the said Rules give power to the authorized officer to release the vehicle seized. 7. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is about non-release of the vehicle which has been detained by respondent No. 3. Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules gives power to the authority to detain and seize such vehicle. Rule 18 of the said Rules give power to the authorized officer to release the vehicle seized. It reads as follows: “18. Power to release property seized on bonds: The authorised officer who has seized any vehicle or other conveyance under rule 13, and where a report of such seizure has been made to the officers authorized by Commissioner under sub-rule (3) of that rule may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required before the officers authorized by the Commissioner having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of such seizure has been made. 8. It appears that as per the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005 rule 18 came to be amended which provide for execution of bond in Form-‘L’. The notification dated 12.02.2015 has been issued. 9. Therefore, in view of the submissions made and the background of facts as stated hereinabove, when the rule empower the authorized officer to release the vehicle on condition and when the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with such condition of execution of bond, the limited prayer of the petitioner could be granted by directing the competent authority, respondent No. 2 herein to consider such application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in question in accordance with the aforesaid rules. The petitioner has shown willingness to comply with the requirement of the rules and execution of bond in Form-L. 10. Therefore, the petition is allowed directing respondent No. 2 authority to consider and decide the application the petitioner for release of vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ-10-X-6974 under rule 18 of the Rules. Further, as the petitioner is ready and willing to execute the bond as per Form-‘L’ as provided under the rules, the same may be considered within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this order. 11. Further, as the petitioner is ready and willing to execute the bond as per Form-‘L’ as provided under the rules, the same may be considered within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this order. 11. It is clarified that the proceedings which have been initiated or which may be initiated against the petitioner regarding recovery of penalty under the Act and/or the Rules shall continue and the present order/direction is only with regard to deciding the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in accordance with law. Therefore, it will be open for the authority to take the decision on such application on its own merits as this court has not expressed any opinion qua the merits of the other prayers of the petitioner. 12. The petition accordingly stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.